Remember this the next time someone tells you
there is no plan to subvert Russia

Richard Brandt

Sun, Aug 14,
2016 | 9,833

The recent George Soros hacks show plans/conspiracy to
subvert Russia's traditional values.

George Soros' Open Society's
Foundation is responsible for funding many "civil rights organization" that
promote "Western values" in Russia.

Soros is one of the 30 richest people
in the world, known for supporting Cultural Marxist organizations around the
world, using his billion dollar wealth to wield enormous influence in
society.

Here is a damning quote from the leaked files of Soros' Open
Society Foundation:

"Our inclination is to engage in activities that
will ... counter Russian support to movements defending traditional
values"

The language in Soros' internal communication read as if his
Foundation sees itself as a full-scale warrior in a global conflict, "the
stakes are high", and "we should avoid entering directly into the
geo-strategic warfare..."

Posted on August 20, 2016
by Sean Adl-Tabatabai in News, World // 11 Comments Putin says Soros is
wanted

Russia have officially declared that Billionaire George Soros is a
wanted man in their country, citing him and his organizations as a
"threat to Russian national security".

Putin banned Soros from Russia
last year due to the fact that Soros helped to nearly destroy the Russian
economy in the early 1990’s.

Veteranstoday.com reports:

Matt
Taibbi of the Rolling Stone said of Goldman Sachs six years ago:

"The
first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere.
The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped
around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into
anything that smells like money.

"In fact, the history of the recent
financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall
of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who’s Who of
Goldman Sachs graduates."

Obviously Soros wants to be like Goldman Sachs.
Phil Butler puts it well when he says: "George Soros has a finger in every
political pie there is. If there is a crisis on our world, it’s a safe bet
he’s had a hand in it."

One can say that Soros and Goldman Sachs are
ideologically part of the same brotherhood. Their strategy is a little
different, but the end result is the destruction of lives via the economic
system (be it capitalism or socialism) and political
manipulation.

That’s why Soros seems to think that he is invincible. He
thinks he can move the political and economic planet in a few blinks of an
eye and no one can tell him to stop. In fact, he writes books such as The
Alchemy of Finance. Soros thinks he can kill political stability throughout
Europe and indeed in America with no challenge.

Soros is certainly
old, but he doesn’t want to be obsolete. His organization has recently been
caught conducting covert operations designed to destabilize Russia. Here is
an interesting quote from the leaked files of Soros’ Open Society
Foundation:

"Our inclination is to engage in activities and with actors
that will understand and counter Russian support to movements defending
traditional values…Naming and shaming from us is problematic: we are
also in the business of channeling money into other countries for
political purposes."

Now we’re talking! Now we’re seeing Soros’ true
colors. All the talk about helping so-called Syrian refugees, about rescuing
Ukrainians, about so-called "civil rights," about bringing "democracy" in
Russia, was a smokescreen.

According to Butler, this was all Soros’
own infection. Soros wanted to bring down Russia’s traditional families. He
wanted to turn Russia into a zoo, but he had to use terms such as
"democracy" to deceive the masses.

So, when Soros wrote last February
that "Putin is a bigger threat to Europe’s existence than Isis," he was
marshalling his own diabolical plan, which arguably is consistent or
congruent with what the Khazarian Mafia and their lackeys have been doing
over the centuries. In fact, the Neoconservatives like Noah Rothman of
Commentary continue to sing the ideological tune that "Russia is not your
friend." Listen to Soros very carefully here:

"The leaders of the US
and the EU are making a grievous error in thinking that president Vladimir
Putin’s Russia is a potential ally in the fight against Islamic State. The
evidence contradicts them. Putin’s aim is to foster the EU’s disintegration,
and the best way to do so is to flood Europe with Syrian
refugees.

"Russian planes have been bombing the civilian population in
southern Syria forcing them to flee to Jordan and Lebanon. There are now
20,000 Syrian refugees camped out in the desert awaiting admission to
Jordan."

What was the evidence that Russian planes were deliberately
bombing the civilian population? Well, the evidence could be found in George
Soros himself. Whatever comes out of his mouth is the truth. No further
investigation is needed. No rigorous testing is required. Soros is the
alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. And if evidence points to
the other direction, then the evidence must be rejected, not Soros’ own
words. If Russia is still obliterating ISIS in Syria, then the
information is false because Soros did not approve it.

Soros has
obviously been making a fool of himself, and he seems to realize that he is
more vulnerable than ever before because he is not acting according to the
dictates of practical reason. In that sense, he is anti-reason. He aspires
to fulfill ideological dogmas and disregard the truth at any cost.

It
is probably true that Soros has been against the Israeli regime, but what he
gives on one hand he takes from the other. It says on paper that he is
against the Israeli regime, but it has been reported that Soros supported
organizations which sought to remove Assad from power. We have to keep in
mind again that the Israeli regime wanted to kick Assad out since the
beginning of the Syrian war.

So, whether Soros liked it or not, he was
indirectly supporting Israel’s crimes by supporting organizations which
sought to oust Assad. If Soros really had aspired to do some good, he would
have framed his political weltanschauung upon reason, not upon wicked
ideologies which ended up ruining one country after another.

As we
have indicated elsewhere, George Soros proves himself to be an agent of the
New World Order by going after Russia, the very country that has been
obliterating ISIS in Syria. ISIS has been using chemical weapons in the
region, and no one, not even Soros, has said a word about
this.

Russia obviously had enough of this man and eventually forbade
him to enter the country. They eventually called him and his subversive
organizations a "threat to Russian national security." Hungarian Prime
Minister Viktor Orban said similar things. F. William Engdahl argued
last January that

"George Soros, the hedge fund speculator turned
self-proclaimed philanthropist, and his tax-exempt foundations, are an
integral part of that pre-emptive war machine."

He is obviously
right. Thank God Russia was more than willing to kick Soros out of the
country. Thank God Putin was willing to act. Thank God for Russia, which is
still shaking the very foundation of the New World Order and political
Satanism:

[...]
Russia is investing heavily in increasing its influence in many aspects of
Europe’s political life, very often supporting groups that are against open
society values. There is evidence of Russian support for radical parties of
the Left and Right, including Eurosceptic nationalists like France’s Front
National and Austria’s FPÖ, and extreme xenophobic parties like Ataka in
Bulgaria, Golden Dawn in Greece and Jobbik in Hungary. There is also
evidence of support for individual political leaders, penetration in civil
society, attempts to manipulate national debates (for instance, to defend
Russia’s energy interests), propaganda to defend Russian international
politics, and support for traditionalist movements. However, the evidence is
still rather sketchy and based more on strong allegations, hence the need to
first do a proper mapping. Putin’s neo-imperial model has also incorporated
an ideological pillar: the defense of traditional family values. Putin has
deemed what he called a destruction of traditional values from above in
the name of so-called tolerance and equality inherently anti-democratic
because it runs counter to the will of the majority of people. This
ideology has been used to advance Russian influence beyond its borders
in Europe and Central Asia, and in international organizations. Our
inclination is to engage in activities and with actors that will
understand and counter Russian influence and support to movements
defending traditional values.

Ever since the start of the
Ukraine crisis Russia has been able to attract a wide range of sympathizers
across the political spectrum within the EU, and proved adept at nudging
them in the required direction. The request to explore the work around
Russia’s influence in Europe has come from the OSF Chairman after our
work-plans and budget for 2015 had already been submitted. The focus in the
first year of this work at OSIFE will be to gauge the influence of Russia in
diverting basic democratic values on EU proper. It will be about exposing
Russia’s many messages that are increasingly well addressed to particular
national discourses, especially building on the erosion of trust in
national and EU-level politics.

Background (Optional)

Russia
is investing heavily in increasing its influence in many aspects of Europe’s
political life, very often supporting groups that are against open society
values. There is evidence of Russian support for radical parties of the Left
and Right, including Eurosceptic nationalists like France’s Front National
and Austria’s FPÖ, and extreme xenophobic parties like Ataka in Bulgaria,
Golden Dawn in Greece and Jobbik in Hungary. There is also evidence of
support for individual political leaders, penetration in civil society,
attempts to manipulate national debates (for instance, to defend Russia’s
energy interests), propaganda to defend Russian international politics, and
support for traditionalist movements. However, the evidence is still rather
sketchy and based more on strong allegations, hence the need to first do a
proper mapping. Putin’s neo-imperial model has also incorporated an
ideological pillar: the defense of traditional family values. Putin has
deemed what he called a destruction of traditional values from above in
the name of so-called tolerance and equality inherently anti-democratic
because it runs counter to the will of the majority of people. This
ideology has been used to advance Russian influence beyond its borders
in Europe and Central Asia, and in international organizations. Our
inclination is to engage in activities and with actors that will
understand and counter Russian influence and support to movements
defending traditional values.

Activities Proposed (500
words)

We will seek to understand in detail some of the activities by
official and unofficial Russian institutions to promote a traditional values
agenda as a means to extend its influence into EU member countries. Once
these activities are mapped and understood, we will support the creation
of tools for organizations that defend individual rights under attack
(LGBTIQ, gender equality, reproductive rights) to understand and develop
a strategy to counter the tactics that are being used in their countries
with Russian support. The three main objectives for this work
are:

1)

To have a clearer picture with concrete examples and,
where possible, hard data on Russian attempts to promote a socially
regressive agenda in at least 5 countries of the European Union. The mapping
will include tracking at least two different issues: a) both the actors that
our outright supported and those who flirt with Russian support without
actually receiving it; b) discourses that these actors engage
in.

2)

To equip organizations in these 5 countries defending
liberal values with the information and tools to detect, understand, and
counter Russian support for reactionary attacks on individual rights and
freedoms.

3)

To generate awareness and understanding in the
LGBTIQ, gender equality and reproductive rights movements across Europe
about this new threat to individual rights and freedoms. The proposed
activities would entail the following: .

2 mapping consultancies (one
for Western Europe, including at least Austria, France and Italy; one in
Central and Eastern Europe, including at least all three Baltic Republics);
.

6 in-depth country reports (countries will be selected after the
mapping exercise); .

1 in-depth report about key players in Russia
and their strategies; .

Communications, dissemination and training
consultancies to process and disseminate the results; .

1
seminar/workshop to share the lessons of the research and generate a tool
kit for organizations; .

10 half-day presentations of conclusions,
lessons and tool kit (6 in each target country, one in Brussels, one with
donors, one in Central Europe, one in Southeast Europe) to activists,
politicians and journalists.

We are building this work on existing links
OSF has with groups in the above referenced movements and their indications
of the disruptive role the Russian insistence on traditional family values
is playing, particularly in the Baltics. Elsewhere there is so far limited
but growing awareness of the funding streams reaching the actors in Western
Europe, particularly the people behind the Manif pour tous in France and
other defenders of reactionary values.

Summary for Board Reports (100
words)

Russia is investing heavily in increasing its influence in many
aspects of Europe’s political life, very often supporting groups that are
against open society values. Putin’s neo-imperial model has also
incorporated an ideological pillar: the defense of traditional family
values. Putin claims the West is hell-bent on destroying traditional
values from above in the name of so-called tolerance and equality, which
is inherently anti-democratic because it runs counter to the will of the
majority. The focus of this work in 2015 at OSIFE will be to gauge the
influence of Russia in diverting basic democratic values on EU
proper.

Collaborating Programs within OSF and essential partners or
grantees

None foreseen in financial terms for now but we will build on
the experience of Eurasia program, OSEPI and TTF both with Russia and with
researchers and investigative journalists in the selected
countries.

Statement of who within OSF would guide the work

The
Open Society Initiative for Europe (OSIFE) will create a separate portfolio
that will host this work and be led by Peter Matjas?ic?, a Barcelona-based
program officer.

Allocator (See list on Reserve Funds
KARL)

Name

Jordi Vaquer

Date Approved

5th April
2015

Allocator Notes / Comments (To be completed by allocator
only)

(Notes/Comments - Optional field)

The origin of this request
is a direct demand by George Soros for OSIFE to become active in this field,
which came in November 2014, too late to incorporate this in the budget.
This work will continue in the next years, but it will need to be part of
OSIFE’s regular budget.

Hillary
Clinton’s deep ideological ties with George Soros called ‘serious cause for
alarm’

by WorldTribune Staff, October 21, 2016

The close
relationship between Hillary Clinton and billionaire globalist George Soros
came into clear focus when WikiLeaks released emails from Clinton campaign
chair John Podesta.

Clinton rarely mentions Soros’s name publicly, but
the emails released thus far show the billionaire’s deep influence on the
Democratic nominee. His name comes up nearly 60 times in the email
exchanges. On the same page: George Soros and Hillary Clinton. /Getty Images
Sugar daddy: George Soros and Hillary Clinton. /Getty Images

Soros
has donated nearly $11 million to Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign
and three main super PACS — USA Action, American Bridge 21st Century and
Hillary for America, according to an analysis by Rowan Scarborough for The
Washington Times.

The new revelations show Clinton "has aligned herself
closely with a vision for America laid out by Soros, who talks of
‘international governance,’ more open borders, increased Muslim immigration
and diminished U.S. global power."

Soros, in 1998, wrote that "the
sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and
international institutions. We need some global system of political
decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global
economy."

Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and co-chair of
Donald Trump’s congressional leadership caucus, said a vote for Clinton is a
vote for the Soros agenda.

"The fact that Hillary Clinton and her
campaign are so closely aligned with George Soros and his radical agenda is
serious cause for alarm," Hunter told The Washington
Times.

"Publicly, it’s a relationship she’s never really talked up, but
communications at least now reveal how closely aligned they are, and
Americans deserve to know that a Clinton presidency means even more
direct influence from George Soros. And as for an agenda, there probably
won’t be much daylight between the two, and Americans should be
concerned that a vote for Clinton is no different than a vote for George
Soros for president."

His foundation has given up to $6 million to
the Clinton Foundation.

"A review of Mrs. Clinton’s private and public
comments shows she has very much absorbed Mr. Soros‘ grand plan for the
world, a blueprint that hangs under the title ‘open societies.’ His New
York-based Open Societies Foundation is at the center of his philanthropy
and politics," Scarborough wrote.

"My dream is a hemispheric common
market, with open trade and open borders," Clinton told a closed-door
audience at Brazilian bank Banco Tau in May 2013.

Soros told
Bloomberg News: "Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective
and national borders as the obstacle."

Clinton said on CBS’ "Face the
Nation" that she wants to boost President Barack Obama’s mark of 10,000
Syrian refugees resettled in the U.S. in one year to 65,000 — a 500 percent
increase.

In a rare public acknowledgment, Clinton said in 2004 that "we
need people like George Soros, who is fearless and willing to step up when
it counts."

An
establishment in panic: Ruling class fears the people won't accept its
political legitimacy

October 26, 2016

By Patrick
Buchanan

Pressed by moderator Chris Wallace as to whether he would accept
defeat should Hillary Clinton win the election, Donald Trump replied, "I
will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense."

"That’s
horrifying," said Clinton, setting off a chain reaction on the post-debate
panels with talking heads falling all over one another in purple-faced
anger, outrage and disbelief.

"Disqualifying!" was the cry on Clinton
cable.

"Trump Won’t Say If He Will Accept Election Results," wailed The
New York Times. "Trump Won’t Vow to Honor Results," ran the banner in The
Washington Post.

But what do these chattering classes and
establishment bulletin boards think the Donald is going to do if he falls
short of 270 electoral votes?

Lead a Coxey’s Army on Washington and burn
it down as British General Robert Ross did in August 1814, while "Little
Jemmy" Madison fled on horseback out the Brookville

What explains the
hysteria of the establishment?

In a word, fear.

The establishment
is horrified at the Donald’s defiance because, deep within its soul, it
fears that the people for whom Trump speaks no longer accept its political
legitimacy or moral authority.

It may rule and run the country, and may
rig the system through mass immigration and a mammoth welfare state so that
Middle America is never again able to elect one of its own. But that
establishment, disconnected from the people it rules, senses, rightly, that
it is unloved and even detested.

Having fixed the future, the
establishment finds half of the country looking upon it with the same sullen
contempt that our Founding Fathers came to look upon the overlords
Parliament sent to rule them.

Establishment panic is traceable to another
fear: Its ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a
golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed.

Trump is "talking
down our democracy," said a shocked Clinton.

After having expunged
Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment
installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all
worship. And so our schools began to teach.

Half a millennia ago,
missionaries and explorers set sail from Spain, England and France to bring
Christianity to the New World.

Today, Clintons, Obamas and Bushes send
soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy" among the "lesser
breeds without the Law."

Unfortunately, the natives, once democratized,
return to their roots and vote for Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim
Brotherhood, using democratic processes and procedures to re-establish their
true God.

And Allah is no democrat.

By suggesting he might not
accept the results of a "rigged election" Trump is committing an
unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of
diversity, democracy and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow
roots.

For none of the three — diversity, equality, democracy — is to be
found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers or the
Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic.

When Ben
Franklin, emerging from the Philadelphia convention, was asked by a woman
what kind of government they had created, he answered, "A republic, if you
can keep it."

Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is
not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of
it.

Consider: Six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton
bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000
convicted felons into eligible voters by November.

If that is
democracy, many will say, to hell with it.

And if felons decide the
electoral votes of Virginia, and Virginia decides who is our next U.S.
president, are we obligated to honor that election?

In 1824, Gen.
Andrew Jackson ran first in popular and electoral votes. But, short of a
majority, the matter went to the House.

There, Speaker Henry Clay and
John Quincy Adams delivered the presidency to Adams — and Adams made Clay
secretary of state, putting him on the path to the presidency that had been
taken by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Adams himself.

Were Jackson’s
people wrong to regard as a "corrupt bargain" the deal that robbed the
general of the presidency?

The establishment also recoiled in horror from
Milwaukee Sheriff Dave Clarke’s declaration that it is now "torches and
pitchforks time."

Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court
Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion":

"We must
realize that today’s Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will
continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress,
honored in tradition, is also revolution."

But
now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the
niceties of liberal democracy to save the America that they love, elitist
enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained.

During the sexual scandals of former President Bill
Clinton—the "bimbo eruptions" as Hillary Clinton called them—the Democrats
and progressive opinion ruled out a person’s sex life as a political factor.
Now, suddenly, nothing more than juvenile locker room banter without the
actual sex has become the determinant of political unfitness.

The
following questions must asked: Where did the 11-year old recording of
locker room talk between Donald Trump and Billy Bush come from? Who recorded
it and kept it for 11 years for what purpose? Why was it released the day
prior to the second debate between Trump and Hillary? Was the recording an
illegal violation of privacy? What became of the woman who recorded Monica
Lewinsky’s confession to her of sex with Bill Clinton? Wasn’t she prosecuted
for wiretaping or some such offense? Why was Billy Bush, the relative of two
US presidents, suspended from his TV show because of a private conversation
with Trump?

You have to take men’s sexual banter with a grain of salt,
just as you do their fish stories. President or candidate Bill Clinton
himself publicly engaged in sexual banter. If memory serves, in a speech to
blue collar workers, Bill said that the bed of his pickup truck was covered
in artificial turf and "you know what that was for." In the Clinton
White House according to reports there were a number of female interns
seeking Bill’s sexual attention. The scantily clad young women came to
work sans underwear until Hillary put her foot down. One wonders if the
Secret Service was told to inspect compliance with the dress
code.

The One Percent masquerading as prudes want to remove Trump as the
Republican candidate. Just how the people’s choice of presidential
candidate is removed in a democracy prior to election, the prudes do not
say. No one wanted to remove Clinton from the presidency despite the
sexual use of the Oval Office, called at the time the "Oral Orifice."
The House Republicans wanted to remove Clinton not for sex but for lying
about it, but the Senate would not go along with it. As senators all
lied about their sexual liaisons, they saw no harm in it. Emigrate While
You Still Can! Learn More . . .

What disturbs me about the importance
attributed to Trump’s sexual banter is that we have in front of us the
dangerous situation of the neoconservatives pushing for Washington to attack
Syrian and Russian forces in Syria and the chief Washington propagandist,
neocon Carl Gershman, calling publicly for the US to "summon the will" to
bring regime change to Russia. The tensions between the two nuclear powers
are currently at all time highs, and this dangerous situation is not a
factor in the US presidential election! And some people wonder why I
call Americans insouciant.

The U.S. media, 90% owned by the One
Percent, have teamed up with their owners against the American people—the
995. As Trump observed during the second presidential "debate," ABC’s Martha
Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper teamed up with Hillary against him: "Nice,
three on one," Trump said.

Do the 99% understand that the anti-Trump
hysteria fanned by the presstitutes is intended to keep the people in
economic bondage and at war?

We all know that the hysteria over the
Trump-Billy Bush locker room banter is orchestrated for political purposes.
But consider the absurdity of it all. Trump’s private expression of sexual
interest in an attractive member of the opposite sex has been declared by
the presstitutes to be "extremely lewd comments about women."

Is what
is going on here the criminalization of heterosexual sex?

>Feminist
say that women do not want to be regarded as sex objects, but

much of
womankind disagrees, judging by the provocative way some of them dress.
Clothes designers, assuming they are good judges of the apparal market for
women, also disagree. At the latest Paris fashion show (October 1) Vivienne
Westwood displayed a dress on which the female sexual organs are displayed
on the dress.

Vivienne Westwood is a woman, a British fashion designer.
She has twice earned the award for British Designer of the Year. The Queen
of England awarded her the aristocratic title of Dame Commander of the
British Empire (DBE) "for services to fashion."

At a ceremony
honoring her at Buckingham Palace, Westwood appeared without panties and
twirled her skirt in the courtyard of the palace. Photographers caught the
event, and in Vivienne’s words, "the result was more glamourous than I
expected."

As recently as 2012, Vivienne was chosen by a panel of
academics, historians, and journalists as one of The New Elizabethans who
have had a major impact on the UK and given this age its
character.

In 18th century England, if historians are correct, young
women would appear at evening social functions in wet gowns that clung to
their bodies the better to indicate their charms. Some of them died of
pneumonia as a consequence. They did this on their own accord to attract
the attention of the opposite sex.

According to reports, robotic
sexual partners are being created for men and women that are superior to the
real thing. Other news reports are that young Japanese men go on vacation
with their sex apps, not with girlfriends. There are indications that as the
advancement in social approval of homosexual, lesbian, and transgendered sex
progresses, heterosexual sex is acquiring the designation of queer. If Trump
had expressed sexual interest in a male or a transgendered person, it would
be politically incorrect to mention it. Only heterosexual sexual
impulses are a political target.

We have reached that point in which
women can appear in high heels with skirts that barely cover their nether
parts and their braless breasts exposed, and men are lewd if they
notice.

Do women really want it this way?

Is Hillary really going
to win the election because Trump is sexually interested in women?

About Me

'Mission statement'.
I am convinced that jewish individuals and groups have an enormous influence on the world. The MSM are, for almost all people, the only source of information, and these are largely controlled by jewish people.
So there is a huge under-reporting on jewish influence in the world.
I see it as my mission to try to close this gap. To quote Henry Ford: "Corral the 50 wealthiest jews and there will be no wars." `(Thomas Friedman wrote the same in Haaretz, about the war against Iraq! See yellow marked area, blog 573)
If that is true, my mission must be very beneficial to humanity.